Maryland's School-Finance System Ruled Legal

Acknowledging that Maryland's system of financing public education
was "imperfect," the state's highest court last week overturned a
two-year-old decision mandating "mathematical equality" in per-pupil
spending among school districts.

In a 5-to-1 decision, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that
although "there are great disparities in educational opportunities
among the state's school districts," the finance system nevertheless
complied with the state's constitutional mandate to provide a "thorough
and efficient" education.

The sole dissenter was Judge Harry A. Cole of Baltimore, who wrote
that the court "should be committed to admonishing the legislature that
it has not fulfilled its constitutional obligation."

The majority opinion vacated a 1981 decision by Circuit Court Judge
David Ross, who held, in a case brought by the Baltimore city school
district and three rural county districts, that the state had violated
its constitution by failing to equalize per-pupil spending.

"Each pupil is entitled to a fair share," which "can be accomplished
only by dividing the money [from state and local sources] equally on an
accurate per-pupil basis across the state," the lower court said. The
decision was interpreted to mean that the state would be required
either to bring all school systems' spending up to the level of the
state's wealthiest county, or to "cap" the amount of funds school
districts would be permitted to spend on education.

Decision Appealed

That decision was appealed by the state and the Montgomery County
Public Schools--a district located in a wealthy suburb of Washington,
D.C., that maintains the highest level of per-pupil spending in the
state, $3,771 last year. Baltimore city, which was joined in the suit
by Somerset, Caroline, and St. Mary's counties, spent $2,564. The state
average last year was $2,888.

Montgomery County intervened in the case because its officials were
''frightened" that Judge Ross's ruling could be interpreted as limiting
the amount of funds the county could spend for education, according to
Kenneth K. Muir, a spokesman for the school system.

In ruling in the state's favor, the court did not take issue with
the poorer districts' contention that Maryland's financing system--even
though it is based on a weighted "equalization" formula--was unfair.
Problems in the system, the decision said, are "widely
acknowledged."

Rather, the court based its opinion on a legal analysis, finding
that the present financing system "satisfies" the "thorough and
efficient" clause. The court also declined to find the state's system
in violation of the "equal protection" clause of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights, because education is not considered a
"fundamental right" under the state constitution.

The court suggested that demands for reform of the system "are more
properly addressed to the legislature for its consideration."

State Funds Limited

Several of those involved in the case speculated about what the next
move would be. Most said that changing the financing formula would not
be sufficient to increase equity among districts, because state funds
are limited. The state last year provided $1,349 for each Baltimore
pupil, while spending only $814 on each pupil in Montgomery County.

Thus, providing substantial additional revenue for the city and
rural students would only be possible if the legislature appropriated
additional education funds, those interviewed said.

In doing so, the state "would have to pay a greater percentage of
education costs than we currently do," said David W. Hornbeck, the
state superintendent of schools. "Currently, we spend 40 to 43 percent,
in contrast to the national average, which hovers around 50 percent,"
he said.

Mr. Hornbeck, whose name appears as the principal defendant in the
case, actually testified as one of the principal witnesses for the
plaintiffs during the four-month trial last year.

"The truth as I know it was supportive of the plaintiff's
position,'' he said. "There is a marked difference in programs,
materials, class sizes, and other factors among poor and wealthier
school systems. It is a gross inequality."

Elliott C. Lichtman, who represented Baltimore and the other
counties, said the decision was not only "sad" for his clients, but
that it represented "a step backward" in the national
school-finance-reform "movement."

Changes Initiated

Courts in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming found their state education systems
unconstitutional and initiated changes. But financing systems have been
upheld in Colorado, Georgia, New York, and Ohio, he said.

The decision may actually have a positive effect on the prospects
for additional state funds for education, said Ellen M. Heller, a
lawyer in the education-affairs division of the state attorney
general's office.

"The opinion will make it easier for Baltimore and the rural
counties to receive more money because [legislators from] the more
affluent counties will no longer be fearful of a court decision forcing
them to act," she said.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.